On 20/09/21 15:40, Marc Zyngier wrote:
At least not before we
declare the arm64 single kernel image policy to be obsolete.
--verbose please.:) I am sure you're right, but I don't understand
the link between the two.
To start making KVM/arm64 modular, you'd have to build it such as
there is
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:18:30 +0100,
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 20/09/21 14:22, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> I think that's only ARM, and even then it is only because of
> >> limitations of the hardware which mostly apply only if VHE is not in
> >> use.
> >>
> >> If anything, it's ARM that should su
On 20/09/21 14:22, Marc Zyngier wrote:
I think that's only ARM, and even then it is only because of
limitations of the hardware which mostly apply only if VHE is not in
use.
If anything, it's ARM that should support module build in VHE mode
(Linux would still need to know whether it will be runn
On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 13:05:25 +0100,
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 17/09/21 09:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> In theory, I like the idea of burying intel_pt inside x86 (and even in
> >> Intel+VMX code for the most part), but the actual implementation is a
> >> bit gross. Because of the whole "KVM c
On 17/09/21 09:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
In theory, I like the idea of burying intel_pt inside x86 (and even in
Intel+VMX code for the most part), but the actual implementation is a
bit gross. Because of the whole "KVM can be a module" thing,
ARGH!! we should really fix that. I've heard other
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 09:37:43PM +, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> So I don't mind exporting __static_call_return0, but exporting a raw
> static_call is much like exporting a function pointer :/
Ya, that part is quite gross.
> > The unregister pat
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 09:37:43PM +, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Argh, sorry, I somehow managed to miss all of your replies. I'll get back to
> this series next week. Thanks for the quick response!
>
> > Lets keep the whole intel_pt crud insid
On Sat, Aug 28, 2021, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 05:35:45PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Like Xu (2):
> > perf/core: Rework guest callbacks to prepare for static_call support
> > perf/core: Use static_call to optimize perf_guest_info_callbacks
> >
> > Sean Christo
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 05:35:45PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Like Xu (2):
> perf/core: Rework guest callbacks to prepare for static_call support
> perf/core: Use static_call to optimize perf_guest_info_callbacks
>
> Sean Christopherson (11):
> perf: Ensure perf_guest_cbs aren't rel
This is a combination of ~2 series to fix bugs in the perf+KVM callbacks,
optimize the callbacks by employing static_call, and do a variety of
cleanup in both perf and KVM.
Patch 1 fixes a mostly-theoretical bug where perf can deref a NULL
pointer if KVM unregisters its callbacks while they're bei
10 matches
Mail list logo
